This case explored the limits of the authority of a state board of pharmacy to discipline a pharmacist for obviously inappropriate conduct. There was no question that the pharmacist described in this case violated the law, but the board of pharmacy did not follow the rules it was given by the legislature. Boards of pharmacy are created by the legislature, and they are limited by the authority the legislature gives them. In most states, a pharmacy act describes how the board of pharmacy will function and the limits of what it can do. Simply because a pharmacist has committed a violation of the law does not mean the board of pharmacy can do anything it pleases to discipline the pharmacist. In most states, specific penalties are prescribed for specific violations. The board of pharmacy may punish pharmacists only in the ways it is authorized to do so under the enabling legislation.

As you read this case excerpt, ask yourself if the board of pharmacy should be given wider latitude in determining the disciplinary actions it may use for a pharmacist who has violated the law. 

Are the rules so difficult to understand that pharmacies will inevitably violate them, or are they possible to understand and easy to apply? 

To what extent should “legal technicalities” be permitted to stand in the way of disciplinary action that is clearly warranted?